Tuesday, November 27, 2001

 

Ashcroft Defends Not Listing Detainees

(Chanur's Note: is he protecting their privacy or is he keeping their whereabouts unknown from family/lawyers?)

Ashcroft Defends Not Listing Detainees
Privacy Rights At Issue, He Says
By Dan Eggen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, November 27, 2001; Page A04


Attorney General John D. Ashcroft yesterday defended his refusal to release the names of hundreds of people detained in connection with the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, saying that doing so would create "a public blacklist" that would violate the detainees' privacy rights.

Ashcroft also said that such a list could help Osama bin Laden, though he did not explain how.

"The law properly prevents the department from creating a public blacklist of detainees that would violate their rights," Ashcroft said at a news conference, adding that none of those detained has been denied access to a lawyer. "They are not being held in secret," he said.

(Chanur's Note: Though any charges brought against them would be a matter of public record, hence they are being held in secret)

Ashcroft maintains that the effort has disrupted potential terrorist activities in the United States. But he has been criticized by civil liberties advocates and some lawmakers for secretive and aggressive detention practices.

"It is ironic that the government is now concerned about rights when it has arrested and jailed hundreds of people without giving the American public any proof that the detainees are being treated fairly," said Lucas Guttentag, director of the ACLU's Immigrants' Rights Project.

More than 1,100 people had been detained for immigration violations and criminal charges when the Justice Department stopped updating statistics earlier this month. A small number were arrested as material witnesses who authorities believe may have information vital to prosecutors. In most cases, officials have declined to release any information about the detainees, including where they are being held, the names of their lawyers or the progress of their cases.

Ashcroft also said yesterday that the FBI issued a warning to its field offices this month that terrorists might attack natural gas supplies if bin Laden were captured or killed. The Nov. 17 warning was relayed to some utilities and energy companies across the country, prompting them to further tighten security.

Ashcroft said that although the alert was based on an "uncorroborated report of undetermined reliability," it was warranted because of the danger posed by an attack on a natural gas pipeline or refinery. According to the information received by the FBI, the attack order came from bin Laden, leader of the al Qaeda terrorist network, one official said.

The threat was linked to the death or capture of bin Laden and Taliban leader Mohammad Omar.

Ashcroft seemed doubtful, however, that such an attack might require any kind of triggering event. "It didn't take anything specific to trigger the attacks on the World Trade Center or the Pentagon," he said.

Ashcroft and FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III have issued two nationwide alerts about possible attacks, but neither mentioned specific targets or triggers. Earlier this month, California Gov. Gray Davis (D) warned of possible attacks on bridges in that state, but the FBI later determined that the source of that report was not credible.

The United States has about 1.4 million miles of natural gas pipelines, including about 200,000 miles of interstate lines used to transport large volumes of gas, according to industry groups.

"We take any kind of threat like the one issued last week very seriously," said Martin E. Edwards III, legislative affairs director for the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America, which represents owners of the large pipelines used to move gas around the country.



<< Home



All articles in this archive are used under "fair use" as they are important to the national discussion of whether or not the people of this country are being deceived by their government. These articles are used as evidence in that discussion.